A2 fit?

[shortbow]

I am one of those strange folks who never owned an A2, so when an Avirex was recently offered for a good price in the exchange, I bought it, partly as a learning experience.

It is tagged as a 44 and fits perfectly as to sleeve length, but I find it quite snug in all other areas save the waist. Are A2's in general meant to fit this way?

It seems as though if I were sitting in a confined place such as a cockpit and just fiddling with controls and such it would be fine, but as to paddling a canoe or mounting a shotgun, it binds.

Never too old to learn, I guess.

 

[Spitfire]

Well - they WERE made for just fiddeling with the controls and such.
And nothing else.

 

[fishmeok]

That particular Avirex is a pretty decent cut as far as authenticity (not all of the Avirex jackets are). Some of the WWII makers had roomier shoulders and arms (like the Dubows) and a few were even tighter than the jacket you have. It has a lot to do with the shape of the top of the sleeve and the position of the shoulder seam. The trimness is fairly normal for an A-2, if you look through period pictures the sleeves ride up as the wearer reaches or turns, which means the jacket is pulling across the back as well- one of the reasons the Navy went to a gusseted back with the M-422A/G-1 jackets. It can take a little getting used to, because most modern jackets are cut wider in the chest and shoulders. You may want to try a 46 if you get a chance, but a modern 46 is more like a vintage 48 so the trim "look" is kind of lost.

Eastman tends to make their A-2's bigger in the shoulders than the size calls for, might want to keep an eye out for a used one. But wear the Avirex a while, don't be afraid to get it wet, beat it up, and stretch around, the goatskin will give quite a bit and mold to your body.
Cheers
Mark

Great A-2 pics of the Doolittle raiders if you guys have not already seen them on John's (Goodwear) site. Shows almost any conceivable "fit" on an A-2.
http://www.goodwearleather.com/pages/links.html

 

[Fletch]

This tight fit thing...

...I really believe it started during WW2, perhaps to make available materials go further for mass production, perhaps to reflect a different physique of the younger, citizen airman.

Here is Hap Arnold (top, 4th from R) and the officers of his historic Alaska flight in 1934. Their A-2s are mostly anything but tight-fitting. In fact some look barely broken-in - the insignia was special for the Alaska hop, so the jackets may have been freshly issued as well. If so they were likely Werber 33-1729s*, the only known contract running at the time.

Note also the style of blousing the jacket to hide the waistband from view.

Of course there would be a world of difference between runs of less than 1,000 jackets made for pilots mostly in their 30s and older (very likely even custom fitted to them), and mass-produced contracts sized to a generation of underfed 18-year-olds.

So in that respect, perhaps the tight fit does pay a quiet tribute to a very common type of young warrior, which may explain its appeal. But it isn't exactly original to the A-2 - merely to the A-2 as it is best remembered.

*My Werber repro by ELC fits in WW2 style - very lean thru the shoulders and sleeves at 48" chest on a size 44. I wonder if it should, or whether it's a gesture toward what the customer thought of as Authenticity.

 

[green papaya]

if you cant even bend over to tie your shoe laces without restriction, it's too small for you.

the older people get then broader and stouter the upper torso gets and a young men's size doesnt fit right on a middle aged or older person.

you might need to go up a size for comfort

 

[shortbow]

Well yes, I guess I'm more of a "mature" warrior than a Young Turk.

Anyhow, thanks for the great info, 's a good start on yet another investigation.

 

[shortbow]

Well Mark, hadda first look at the goodwear site and some of the links there as well, and it seems my jacket fits in pretty much the vintage style.

 

[Milu]

looking at that photo I note that the overstuffed sausage, pigeon chest with spaghetti arms look is noticeable by its absence.

My feeling is that this photo shows how the A-2 was intended to look. Tighter fits may have come about by wartime rush and shortages as well as young recruits getting what was available and perhaps growing into their jackets.

Any thoughts?

 

[fishmeok]

I didn't mean to re-open the "Proper Fit" argument, especially since I come down on the whatever-is-most-comfortable side of things. There are pics of every conceivable A-2 fit being worn during the war, I personally prefer them a little more trim in the body. The biggest problem with more modern jackets is the actual cut, larger in the shoulders and body, not "square" like the originals, and with larger armholes. From what I have read on the lists Eastman has better patterns than they used to, but the ones I have personally examined are larger in the chest and shoulders. Aero A-2's also exibit this. Chapman explained to me that once you go above about a 46-48 in the original A-2's the body sizes get huge, but the shoulders stay about the same. Also the armholes are a little smaller on the big sizes, and larger on the small jackets, which makes sense, if you think about it.

Here is a pic of a guy in the 95th BG wearing a Dubow that is a bit big on him, but notice the square cut and appearance:

And a larger guy from the 95th, leaning on an MB/GPW, note how the arms ride up.

Another nice crew shot, note the difference in sizes and cut:

Cheers
Mark

 

[Fletch]

There are pics of every conceivable A-2 fit being worn during the war

But not before the war - which speaks to my point about how the A-2 was probably intended to fit. (This goes for the A-1, too, as far as I've been able to observe..)

Now how is it that armholes on large sizes are actually smaller, and on small sizes larger? You wouldn't cut a 11" deep armhole on a size 36 and a 9" on a 48. That's just nuts.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

'FiTTing' tribute to the a-2

great bunch of pix, especially of pre ww2 a-2 usage...a total tribute and discussion of the 'fit' of an a-2

my own opinion is that, like a current production mustang can out race/out handle anything from the 60s, one would still prefer to have a vintage 60s...

the a-2 is a piece of another time...like listening to a song from when you were in high school, or getting into a 30 year old car you had when in high school...

if you want functionality, i guess hap arnold said it right when he threw an a-2 on the ground and ordered that it be replaced with a nylon jacket back in '43 (if i have the history right)

but the a-2 is not about functionality today, but functionality back then, and as such it brings the past to us (not, of course, those blousey full cut a-2s that look like you're wearing a parka)...

the thing about the a-2, as that 'alaska brigade' photo of 1934 shows, you can still wear them big if you need to, but it's the squared off silhouette of an authentic military cut jacket that will shine through...

on a number of the great pix shown, you can see some guys wearing them up to their navel, and some guys who wear them big enough to come down to halfway down the front pant zipper...i prefer the latter, but really, all that matters is that this jacket is a piece of history, and wearing it takes us there...

which is the joy of anything vintage...and i think part of the motivation behind so many people on this forum looking for 'authentic'...it's not just a jacket, it's being in search of something, perhaps, lost and nostalgic